Pros And Cons Of Urban Renewal

Lastly, the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 contributed to the matter of urban decay that the previous housing acts of 1949 and 1954 aimed to alleviate. The Federal government approved over one million dollars in funds for the program which would provide 41,000 miles of roads that connects “90 percent of all cities with populations more than 50,000.” Although this project, one of the largest in history, elevated the economy and the nation’s mobility, its construction put urban neighborhoods at risk. With 2,300 miles of proposed interstates carving their way through communities, the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 metamorphosed from a proficient economic and societal tool into a new form of disposing of decaying areas by bulldozing neighborhoods. As B. Drummond Ayres, Jr. declared in a 1967 article, “The nation must pay the price.”

That price would be paid, and a statute intended to integrate the United States ultimately led

After all, Moses is responsible for the construction of the United Nations Complex and Lincoln Center. Advocates of urban renewal in New York envisioned a city with the potential to be an international, modern, powerhouse, all the while creating a safe, beautiful place for suburbanites to come back to. This dream could be real, and with it an innovative, enhanced city could be realized. Urban renewal embodied hope for a brighter future. New York could be taken back from blight and deteriorating living spaces, enhancing residents’ lives in the best way possible. This vision, while not the basis for the Housing Acts of 1949 and 1954, gave planners and businessmen the ability to realize their dreams. The push for beautification resulted in improved buildings and housing, and as P.J. Madgwick states, “Welfare programmes of the 1960’s have attended to the total welfare needs of the slum dweller,” a point that could be